PDA

View Full Version : Confusion about generations and masters etc.


Dylz
2005-08-14, 03:18 AM
Hey, I'm relatively new to the world of getting correct source and lineage info and I have a few questions about generations.

for example an audience MD recording
Is this correct?

MASTER = original data from MD (WAV on computer)
CDR(1) = 1st gen. Burnt directly from the master WAVs on computer
CDR(2) = 2nd gen. copied of CDR(1)
etc....

or is this correct?

MASTER = original data from MD (WAV on computer)
MASTER CLONE = Burnt directly from the master WAVs on computer
CDR(1) = 1st gen. Burnt directly from the master clone cdr
CDR(2) = 2nd gen. Copied of CDR(1)
etc....

I am confused.

Is there such thing as CDR(O)

Please help me.
Thanks

-Dylz

AAR.oner
2005-08-14, 09:21 AM
some folks use slightly different styles for this.

for in stance of you taped a show on MD, the actually minidisc would be yer minidisc master, or MD(M)...if you then transferred it to yer comp as a .wav, and burned a "Audio CD", that would be CDR(0) [aka a Master Clone]...if that disc was extracted with EAC and then the wavs re-burned, CDR(1)...etc etc.

hope that helps

Karst
2005-08-14, 09:38 AM
I would just indicate the digital transfer ie MD>Cooledit Pro>WAV>FLAC (level 5). The MD remains the raw master and any CD burned of the WAV will be a clone unless there has been some substantial editing. Now - that is in my book - maybe ask Five what the general requirements here are. :cool:

joshd
2005-08-15, 10:33 PM
Hey, I'm relatively new to the world of getting correct source and lineage info and I have a few questions about generations.

for example an audience MD recording
Is this correct?

MASTER = original data from MD (WAV on computer)
CDR(1) = 1st gen. Burnt directly from the master WAVs on computer
CDR(2) = 2nd gen. copied of CDR(1)
etc....

or is this correct?

MASTER = original data from MD (WAV on computer)
MASTER CLONE = Burnt directly from the master WAVs on computer
CDR(1) = 1st gen. Burnt directly from the master clone cdr
CDR(2) = 2nd gen. Copied of CDR(1)
etc....

I am confused.

Is there such thing as CDR(O)

Please help me.
Thanks

-Dylz

I've seen people do it both ways, and it is kind of confusing, but the second way is more correct imo.

Basically I think of it like tapes. The first tape is not the first gen. It's the master. When you make your first copy to another tape, *that's* the first gen.

If you have MD(master) > CPU, and you then burn the wavs onto a CDR, that's a CDR(m) or CDR(0) to me.

CDR(1) tells me that there was another set of CDRs before this one. Just like the tapes, the first CDR set is not the first gen. The CDR set that is copied from the first CDR set is the first gen.

It's also like with decades/centuries etc. The first year is not year 1, it's year 0.

AAR.oner
2005-08-15, 11:17 PM
I would just indicate the digital transfer ie MD>Cooledit Pro>WAV>FLAC (level 5). The MD remains the raw master and any CD burned of the WAV will be a clone unless there has been some substantial editing. Now - that is in my book - maybe ask Five what the general requirements here are. :cool:
this would be sufficient to seed here, but i'd add MD(M) so folks know its the orig MD. here's the FAQ on audio seeds http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item#faq_rules

to really please the purists you could put:
MD(M) > *whatever transfer method you use -- mini-to-? or optical-to-?* > CoolEdit Pro [or Audacity or whatever recording program] > .wav > *program used to encode to .flac* > .flac

New Homebrew
2005-08-15, 11:55 PM
MASTER = original data from MD (WAV on computer)
MASTER CLONE = Burnt directly from the master WAVs on computer
CDR(1) = 1st gen. Burnt directly from the master clone cdr
CDR(2) = 2nd gen. Copied of CDR(1)
etc....

It is confusing. Partly because there is no standard notation.

Remember, unless you transfer your minidisc optically (digitally) to your computer, that ain't no "master clone". Going line in to your soundcard adds an analog generation.

Five
2005-08-16, 11:39 AM
I agree, it is confusing. then there's the old technology like that digital beta thing, I think it was called PCM (not PCM WAV!! :eek: ).

As for masters, let's set the record straight here.

A master is a master is a master. It is the original media used by the taper. In the case of studio outtakes it is the original analog/digital mixdown reel that is the master. So this and only this gets the (m). The exception is FM. With FM, there's two kinds of masters (yes, wtf, but that's the way it is): (a) the first media used to store a mixdown recorded by a radio station itself, and then there's (b) the original media used by a taper. MD is not allowed for taping FM, so that leaves CASS, ANA (which often means open reel, but also states "unknown analog media"), DAT, soundcard > WAV, CDR from a standalone burner. So, something could be FM > Sony Receiver > Aiwa AD-F810 3-Head Cassette Deck (recording) > CASS(m) > Aiwa AD-F810 (transfer) > Audiophile2496 soundcard > Adobe Audition v1.5 (recording, tracking and cutting) > FLAC frontend v1.1.2a (verify enabled, level 6) > FLAC

now if you burned that to a CDR, then it would be CDR(0), e.g.: FM > Sony Receiver > Aiwa AD-F810 3-Head Cassette Deck (recording) > CASS(m) > Aiwa AD-F810 (transfer) > Audiophile2496 soundcard > Adobe Audition v1.5 (recording, tracking and cutting) > FLAC frontend v1.1.2a (verify enabled, level 6) > FLAC > EAC v0.95 beta 2 (write offset corrected) > CDR(0)

but nobody really does this without keeping the original data as a backup, right? :D So you usually wont see a lineage like that last one I posted show up re-extracted to FLAC. The only way this would be if the CDR could be extracted with no errors whatsoever to the point where SHNtool cmp, st5s et al. are all identical to the original FLACs. So this means, its important to read & write with your offsets corrected. The funniest thing is, after a couple hours spent trying to get your computer to make a perfectly accurate audio cdr until you finally succeed gives you a distrust for the audio CDR format. So when I've got a real technophobic friend who's computer illiterate (we all know one), I'll burn him/her a CDR(0) and tell them that if they meet somebody who wants to trade anything similar to send them to me 'cause I might be able to help to trade for a couple more. Then when it comes to that trade, I try to get talking FLAC as soon as possible, altho sometimes I end up getting audio cdrs anyways (oldschool). Most ppl will take the FLACs so long as there's a computer in their house. I'll tell them about foobar2k & flac frontend then they're pretty much okay.

So, in the case of Studio Reel > DAT(1) > CDR(0) > EAC (secure, offsets corrected) > FLAC The CDR becomes 0 providing it is a digital dump, however if it is analog then it becomes CDR(1) which is also confusing because then it looks like maybe there's been two audio CDRs instead of one. It's confusing as hell. The best solution to this is to make mention of how the heck it got from DAT > CDR, like the tapers elite who always list their equipment in a cryptic stew of abbreviated company names and model numbers (jargon).

There's also the Source/Transfer method of writing lineage, where the "source" describes the recording process and the "transfer" describes the encoding process. This format is used almost exclusively by tapers and imo is the best of all.

So when I get a show I will examine the audio closely and add to the lineage only things I am 99% certain about, and often make notes about the pervious lineage (as it was written) at the bottom with the date included. And of course .st5 with all things lossless audio.

Oh, come to think of it a pressed wwo cdr (not silver!) could be considered to be CDR(m) but to make it clear it is best to write it like this "wwo pressed CDR(m)"

okay I'm really rambling now does anybody really read posts like this? :lol

AAR.oner
2005-08-16, 01:56 PM
There's also the Source/Transfer method of writing lineage, where the "source" describes the recording process and the "transfer" describes the encoding process. This format is used almost exclusively by tapers and imo is the best of all.
:clap: this is the method i use now for tapes i've recorded. i think its more easily read when broken into the Source and then the Transfer. here's an example of a recent show i just transferred.

SOURCE: SP C4s [FOB] > Edirol UA5 [Oade DigiMod] > Sony PCM-M1 > DAT(M) @<hidden> 16bit44.1kHz
TRANSFER: DAT(M) > Sony PCM-M1 > Edirol UA5 [Oade DigiMod] > usb > Audacity [recording/editing] > .wav > xACT > .flac

Five
2005-08-16, 03:21 PM
that's it I'm switching!

New Homebrew
2005-08-16, 06:26 PM
So, in the case of Studio Reel > DAT(1) > CDR(0) > EAC (secure, offsets corrected) > FLAC The CDR becomes 0 providing it is a digital dump, however if it is analog then it becomes CDR(1) which is also confusing because then it looks like maybe there's been two audio CDRs instead of one.

That is an interesting way of numbering CDr copies, however I've never seen it used in that fashion. Mostly because only a very few people copy CD's via analog connection.

Typically it would indicate the number of people or CDr copies between you and the taper/master. I am kind of against using (0) cause it's like a hidden generation. To avoid confusion you can just write it out. master cassette > CDr > CDr > CDr. which I would abbreviate as m>CDr(3) or m>C3, even though they are all copied digitally.

freezer
2005-08-16, 09:56 PM
As for masters, let's set the record straight here.

A master is a master is a master. It is the original media used by the taper. In the case of studio outtakes it is the original analog/digital mixdown reel that is the master. So this and only this gets the (m). {/QUOTE}

But what if the master reel is destroyed, as was in the case of the John Entwistle 7/18/79 Studio rough Mixes that were just seeded here. at TTD.

Would you then want to consider the 1G cassette the master now since you will not be able to trace the lineage further back any longer?

I would vote no, as I agree with Five, that a master is a master is a master. And that the master is unique and stays unique, even if it no longer exists.

[QUOTE=Five] The exception is FM. With FM, there's two kinds of masters (yes, wtf, but that's the way it is): (a) the first media used to store a mixdown recorded by a radio station itself, and then there's (b) the original media used by a taper. MD is not allowed for taping FM, so that leaves CASS, ANA (which often means open reel, but also states "unknown analog media"), DAT, soundcard > WAV, CDR from a standalone burner. So, something could be FM > Sony Receiver > Aiwa AD-F810 3-Head Cassette Deck (recording) > CASS(m) > Aiwa AD-F810 (transfer) > Audiophile2496 soundcard > Adobe Audition v1.5 (recording, tracking and cutting) > FLAC frontend v1.1.2a (verify enabled, level 6) > FLAC


now if you burned that to a CDR, then it would be CDR(0), e.g.: FM > Sony Receiver > Aiwa AD-F810 3-Head Cassette Deck (recording) > CASS(m) > Aiwa AD-F810 (transfer) > Audiophile2496 soundcard > Adobe Audition v1.5 (recording, tracking and cutting) > FLAC frontend v1.1.2a (verify enabled, level 6) > FLAC > EAC v0.95 beta 2 (write offset corrected) > CDR(0)

but nobody really does this without keeping the original data as a backup, right? :D So you usually wont see a lineage like that last one I posted show up re-extracted to FLAC. The only way this would be if the CDR could be extracted with no errors whatsoever to the point where SHNtool cmp, st5s et al. are all identical to the original FLACs. So this means, its important to read & write with your offsets corrected. The funniest thing is, after a couple hours spent trying to get your computer to make a perfectly accurate audio cdr until you finally succeed gives you a distrust for the audio CDR format. So when I've got a real technophobic friend who's computer illiterate (we all know one), I'll burn him/her a CDR(0) and tell them that if they meet somebody who wants to trade anything similar to send them to me 'cause I might be able to help to trade for a couple more. Then when it comes to that trade, I try to get talking FLAC as soon as possible, altho sometimes I end up getting audio cdrs anyways (oldschool). Most ppl will take the FLACs so long as there's a computer in their house. I'll tell them about foobar2k & flac frontend then they're pretty much okay.

OK, new can o’ woims here.

Last week I sent 3 shows to Five to be shared at TTD. These were from WWOZ-FM in New Orleans.

WWOZ broadcasts over 100 shows a year live, and that means live-as-it –happens, OR broadcasts pre-recorded shows and that ‘usually’ means recorded within the last 24 hours, OR live-in-the-studio and that means a spontaneous performance within the WWOZ broadcast studio.

(Yeah, I know there ain’t many radio stations still doing this type of broadcast anymore.)

However, WWOZ does NOT always archive their live broadcasts, particularly the spontaneous live in the studio shows.

And this wouldn’t be an issue, except that I just mailed Five a handful of shows that were captured direct to CDR from the FM.

And there is no “master copy” in existence at the radio station level. My CDR is a “master copy” (There are probably more master copies, but who knows for sure. I do know in one instance WWOZ did not archive one of the shows I sent to Five, because the musicians were on-line looking for a copy.)

I’m saying the lineage is like this:

WWOZ-FM>Marantz 2215>JVC 5010>CDR master(0)>CDR(1).

The CDR(1) is the copy I sent to Five.

In order to seed it, I assume he’ll add additional lineage.

But what about it, is the lineage I gave good enough? :hmm:

In these cases you won’t be able to get a lower generation, it just doesn’t exist. :cool:


So, in the case of Studio Reel > DAT(1) > CDR(0) > EAC (secure, offsets corrected) > FLAC The CDR becomes 0 providing it is a digital dump, however if it is analog then it becomes CDR(1) which is also confusing because then it looks like maybe there's been two audio CDRs instead of one. It's confusing as hell. The best solution to this is to make mention of how the heck it got from DAT > CDR, like the tapers elite who always list their equipment in a cryptic stew of abbreviated company names and model numbers (jargon).

In the case of the Entwistle roughs, there was only cassette(1G)>JVC 5010>CDR(0). And since I sent a copy to a different friend for seeding at dime, both were cassette(1G)>JVC 5010>CDR(0)…but they’ll be different because they are 2 different digital transfers.

How would you lineage specialists deal with that? :confused:

okay I'm really rambling now does anybody really read posts like this? :lol

It was easier to respond this way than to send you a private message about the lineage on the discs that are in the mail already……

Now you can get a consensus on how the lineage should be on LIVE FM shows, since you are about to be dealing with some soon. :D

jcrab66
2005-08-16, 11:00 PM
:clap: this is the method i use now for tapes i've recorded. i think its more easily read when broken into the Source and then the Transfer. here's an example of a recent show i just transferred.

SOURCE: SP C4s [FOB] > Edirol UA5 [Oade DigiMod] > Sony PCM-M1 > DAT(M) @<hidden> 16bit44.1kHz
TRANSFER: DAT(M) > Sony PCM-M1 > Edirol UA5 [Oade DigiMod] > usb > Audacity [recording/editing] > .wav > xACT > .flac


thats pretty much how i do it although personally i wouldnt put the "DAT(M)" in the source field since its pretty friggin obvious that the tape thats in the M1 is the master, I would just leave the "(M)" out

Five
2005-08-17, 12:38 PM
WWOZ-FM>Marantz 2215>JVC 5010>CDR master(0)>CDR(1).

The CDR(1) is the copy I sent to Five.

In order to seed it, I assume he’ll add additional lineage.

But what about it, is the lineage I gave good enough? :hmm:

In these cases you won’t be able to get a lower generation, it just doesn’t exist. :cool:
That's great. that will provide the source info. then I just add the transfer info, and it will look something like this (when I'm done):

Source: WWOZ-FM>Marantz 2215>JVC 5010>CDR master(0)>CDR(1)
Transfer: CDR(1) > EAC (secure, offsets corrected) > FLAC (verify enabled, level 8)
Taper: Freezer

In the case of the Entwistle roughs, there was only cassette(1G)>JVC 5010>CDR(0). And since I sent a copy to a different friend for seeding at dime, both were cassette(1G)>JVC 5010>CDR(0)…but they’ll be different because they are 2 different digital transfers.
How would you lineage specialists deal with that? :confused:

The variants can be spotted by the .st5/.ffp variations. It will add some confusion because down the line somebody might collect both, number them, and post on some webpage which one is "preferred" (if either).

It was easier to respond this way than to send you a private message about the lineage on the discs that are in the mail already……

Now you can get a consensus on how the lineage should be on LIVE FM shows, since you are about to be dealing with some soon. :D
What's tricky about live FM shows? It would be about the same, where's the catch?

freezer
2005-08-17, 01:07 PM
What's tricky about live FM shows? It would be about the same, where's the catch?

The shows I sent you, two of them were definitely not archived by the station. (but they 'may' have been recorded by other collectors)

Are these shows "masters" OR "master copies" OR is there some other conventional terminology used?

Is this terminology in use only conventional for TTD?

Any confusion here stems from seeing "low gen" collectors call copies of 'commercial' bootlegs "master clones"...

pmonk
2005-08-17, 01:38 PM
What I find funny is that the whole lineage thing is pretty stupid when you think about it.

When you look at the TTD policy forbiding the torrenting of shows where their is a CD-R generation between an "original silver" since as Mr. Freezer pointed out we have no idea where the lineage of the "original silver" is anyway??

I do understand the reason for this (i.e. cuts down on digital errors from bad rips and burns) but if you verify that its an error-free copy it shouldl be fine.

Now - when it comes to the analog world of cassette tapes obviously each generation means a deterioration of the sound (just like when making a xerox copy the copy is not identical of the original and if you make a copy of copy then the quality just gets worse and worse)

So, sound qualty wise a CD-R(3) should sound no different then CD-R(10) as long as ech copy is error free but a 2nd generation tape is going to sound much better then a 7th generation tape!

zeptrade
2005-08-17, 02:21 PM
What I find funny is that the whole lineage thing is pretty stupid when you think about it.

When you look at the TTD policy forbiding the torrenting of shows where their is a CD-R generation between an "original silver" since as Mr. Freezer pointed out we have no idea where the lineage of the "original silver" is anyway??

I do understand the reason for this (i.e. cuts down on digital errors from bad rips and burns) but if you verify that its an error-free copy it shouldl be fine.

Now - when it comes to the analog world of cassette tapes obviously each generation means a deterioration of the sound (just like when making a xerox copy the copy is not identical of the original and if you make a copy of copy then the quality just gets worse and worse)

So, sound qualty wise a CD-R(3) should sound no different then CD-R(10) as long as ech copy is error free but a 2nd generation tape is going to sound much better then a 7th generation tape!Exactly and people get confused over the term "Master_" because there is the actual tape that was used to record a show or whatever and then there are working Masters. From my own experience most people first make a safety copy of the Master and then make maybe 5 copies off the master to send to his co-conspirators. They either make copies from the "Master" or make 1 to _ copies to use as "Working Masters". :confused:Which should be called 1st generation possibly.

range_hood
2005-08-17, 03:37 PM
The shows I sent you, two of them were definitely not archived by the station. (but they 'may' have been recorded by other collectors)

Are these shows "masters" OR "master copies" OR is there some other conventional terminology used?

Is this terminology in use only conventional for TTD?

Any confusion here stems from seeing "low gen" collectors call copies of 'commercial' bootlegs "master clones"...

you could add something like postFM master, like the nirvana community uses. they´re pretty anal about the lineage at some point.
Also you could state what kind of FM broadcast it was. digitalFM, cableFM, terrestrialFM

As for the different digital transfers you could also add freezer_tranfer_one to avoid confusion, if you don´t want to list what you´ve done.


WWOZ-postFM(terrestrial)>Marantz 2215>JVC 5010>CDR master(0)>freezer_transfer_one>CDR(1)

Five
2005-08-19, 01:07 AM
What I find funny is that the whole lineage thing is pretty stupid when you think about it.

When you look at the TTD policy forbiding the torrenting of shows where their is a CD-R generation between an "original silver" since as Mr. Freezer pointed out we have no idea where the lineage of the "original silver" is anyway??

I do understand the reason for this (i.e. cuts down on digital errors from bad rips and burns) but if you verify that its an error-free copy it shouldl be fine.

Now - when it comes to the analog world of cassette tapes obviously each generation means a deterioration of the sound (just like when making a xerox copy the copy is not identical of the original and if you make a copy of copy then the quality just gets worse and worse)

So, sound qualty wise a CD-R(3) should sound no different then CD-R(10) as long as ech copy is error free but a 2nd generation tape is going to sound much better then a 7th generation tape!

Well, fact is that CD-R getting one or more gens added 99% means it was copied with nero or whatever with no offset correction. so everything just sort of slides a little. Which honestly isn't such a big deal. The other real problem with CDR gens is that errors creep in... I've got a couple hundred CDR(x) zep audio CDRs and something like 15% of them skip, others have SBEs burned into them... so I feel better from experience having a lower gen CDR if its available. If it has been copied well then the offsets will have merly slid so you really have to give it a close listen. When it finally gets off CDR and becomes a FLAC set it should be examined carefully by the seeder (and the downloaders who are more on the audiophile end).

As for bootleg silvers, we originally didn't want them here at all since they're unknown generation. We decided to allow them because (a) we want to take profits away from bootleggers and (b) those bootleggers have made some unsurpassed stuff (or at least sometimes unsurfaced). We decided that we wouldn't tolerate CDR gens for boots since there are a fair number or any title out there ripe for the EAC'ing.

New Homebrew
2005-08-19, 02:28 AM
"master clone"

this usually refers to a show taped on DAT which you have as a DAT(n) version and is typically unreliable history. somehow things morph into master sources as they get traded down the line. I haven't seen it used in reference to CD sources but I don't think I'd trust it if I did.

As for "FM", "master destroyed", "dubbed from safety copy" none of those are really considered master sources. The master tape is the one recorded at the time and place of the event. If it gets destroyed or burned up, the 1st gen copy doesn't become the master, even though it's the lowest gen available. Some people do make digital transfers or analog copies directly from the actual masters and sometimes it's from a safety copy, as above. You just need to hammer out the details if it really matters to you.

Another reason why "no CD copies of bootlegs". Bootlegs are kind of widely available where as CDr or DAT direct from master source is only held by a few people. See what I mean?

freezer
2005-08-19, 03:30 PM
As for bootleg silvers, we originally didn't want them here at all since they're unknown generation. We decided to allow them because (a) we want to take profits away from bootleggers

(a) Sites like this and dime and eztree and Yahoo groups etc really haven't taken as much away from bootleggers as made their job a lot easier in obtaining shows to sell.

Certainly haven't cut into the Dylan or Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin bootleggers profits at all. Most new Dylan boots come from torrents directly from these sites...

(Local New Orleans bootleg record store, The Mushroom, was selling copies of YES "Master Series#2", 12/1/74 - Baton Rouge --- which is supposed to be a product of a fan group, but the fan group actually made it easy for the bootleggers to obtain materials that were already salable. Even the fan artwork was reproduced.)

These are not just isolated incidents. Led Zeppelin 2/28/75 Baton Rouge was torrented on R-O and dime a few months ago. Now the same show has just been released from Empress Valley. A boot of a torrent of a boot. And how soon after someone at TTD obtains the Empress Valley boot will it be seeded on this site?

A torrent of a boot of a torrent of a boot?

Is that acceptable lineage?

Sure, as long as the seed is ripped from AN "original silver" boot, right?


(b) those bootleggers have made some unsurpassed stuff (or at least sometimes unsurfaced). We decided that we wouldn't tolerate CDR gens for boots since there are a fair number or any title out there ripe for the EAC'ing.

(b) that may have been true years ago, like in 1970 or so - when bootleggers actually did record shows, but many bootleggers now "surface" shows that other bootleggers have already surfaced. OR that have actually surfaced from tapers or collectors.

Plus, how do you know that some taper/trader didn't surface that show you attribute to a bootlegger? Just because you haven't seen it yet, doesn't mean it wasn't being spread by some traders already.

Here I speak from experience. The Johnny Winter 6/7/75 that I taped 30 years ago was given freely to the rsboots yahoo group in 2002. They spread it around, but it was bootlegged in 2002 (from one of their clones of the CDr).

So I went back to the master tape and did a new digital transfer, this time including a minute of audience noise and stage announcements that weren't on the first transfer. That was first spread on a couple of Yahoo groups like Archival Group and AllBlues.

So if you didn't belong to these groups that "surfaced" those versions of that recording, you would have testified that the bootlegger "surfaced" that 6/7/75 Johnny Winter recording, right?

And if I hadn't supplied a CDr "master clone" of transfer 2 with appropriate lineage, the bootleg would have been allowed here, but the better second digital transfer with more material would not?



As for "FM", "master destroyed", "dubbed from safety copy" none of those are really considered master sources. The master tape is the one recorded at the time and place of the event. If it gets destroyed or burned up, the 1st gen copy doesn't become the master, even though it's the lowest gen available. Some people do make digital transfers or analog copies directly from the actual masters and sometimes it's from a safety copy, as above. You just need to hammer out the details if it really matters to you.

In the 3 years since I've returned to the hobby, I have indeed seen "That Which Passes for the MASTER" listed in lineage where a master tape was unavailable for common trading. This is in the "low gen" Led Zeppelin community, and in particular in an on-line list in reference to the 2/28/75 LZ in Baton Rouge recording. The Pink Floyd "low gen" community is also experiencing a similar problem, with the 4/28/77 Baton Rouge show with some self-professed expert now passing off a copy of the bootleg as a "first generation" copy.

Does it matter? There are some collectors who do say they have a master copy if it comes from a "silver" boot. There are some collectors who do document their collections very meticulously and don't want copies of boots as "master copies".


Its one of the reasons I prefer to pass out shows here at TTD. At least the majority of collectors who are here are very interested in getting it right the first time.

However, I still question the policy of seeding bootlegs as freely as is the custom here. That policy, as now stands, makes it too easy for confusion to cloud the lineage issue.


Your mileage may vary.

Five
2005-08-19, 04:44 PM
(a) Sites like this and dime and eztree and Yahoo groups etc really haven't taken as much away from bootleggers as made their job a lot easier in obtaining shows to sell.
the numbers that are being pressed are way down. bootleggers' profits are way down. you can hardly find them at all in my town, not like 15 yrs ago. its true that sources for boots are more easily available for bootleggers, but when you consider they're pressing 50 instead of 500 or 1000 and you can hardly find them then I'd call that hitting them where it hurts.

you can either keep the recordings out of circulation or circulate them so widely that nobody can make a profit. I prefer the 2nd option.

freezer
2005-08-19, 09:12 PM
For the sake of discussion:

the numbers that are being pressed are way down. bootleggers' profits are way down. you can hardly find them at all in my town, not like 15 yrs ago. its true that sources for boots are more easily available for bootleggers, but when you consider they're pressing 50 instead of 500 or 1000 and you can hardly find them then I'd call that hitting them where it hurts.

So you say. I say it's different. And as you did, I have statistics too.

The bootlegger who was supplying The Mushroom (boot seller in New Orleans 1 block from the Tulane campus) was caught with OVER 10,000 units in stock.

You and I are both quoting from recent news stories. I believe your numbers come from a LA Times story (please correct me if I'm wrong.) My stats come from the New Orleans Times-Picayune, which reported on this boot store's bust as local news.

I can find boots at two more independent music stores, one of which is in the French Quarter in the center of New Orleans. Tonight, right now, Beatles, Dylan, NIN...what do you want?

The Mushroom which was the store busted, FEATURED a full glass cabinet of boots of shows recorded in the New Orleans area OR boots of outtakes from albums recorded at Kingsway Studio here in New Orleans.

You may be currently unable to find them in your hometown, but when was the last time you made a concerted effort to find bootlegs? If you're in a fairly large city, especially near a college with an independent music store, you can find bootlegs. I can find them in a college town like Hammond, Louisiana (population in July 2002: 17,624). (I buy a lot of used jazz cds, so I frequent independent music shops.)

Besides why look when you can have e-mailed announcement like this come to your home:

> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:00:47 +0900
> To: fis.....@<hidden>
> From: E.... S.... <fis....s@<hidden>>
> Subject: New Empress Valley Label Title NOW in
> Stock! #D
>
> Hiya Everybody:
>
............................................
............................................
>
> *** New Titles NOW in Stock ***
>
> The Battle of Baton Rouge (2/28/75) 3 CD Empress
> Valley Label $97
>
> California Sunshine (3/11/75 Long Beach) 3 CD
> Badgeholders Label $72
>
> Riot House (12/22/72 London, UK) 3 CD Longer Source
> from Wendy label! $72
>
> Top of the World (5/5/73 Tampa) 2 CD Badgeholders
> Label $52
>
> Led Zeppelin - The Dragon Snake" (5/21/77 Houston,
> TX SB) 3 CD Empress Valley Label 3 CD set $125
>
> Jeff Beck - Sapporo 05 2 CD Empress Valley $47
>
> Rock ON,
>
> E...

......................................................................................


Do you really believe that these aforementioned bootlegs are being pressed in lots of 50 instead of 500 or 1000?????

If so, then they'd charge "collectors" prices for them and they'd be calling them "rare" items.

Ask some of the Led Zeppelin collectors on this site about prices and if they can't find any LZ silver boot they 'really' want.... if they're willing to pay the outrageous prices being asked by boot dealers these days.



you can either keep the recordings out of circulation or circulate them so widely that nobody can make a profit. I prefer the 2nd option.

Lets say for the sake of discussion that somebody might possibly have an heretofore uncirculated Led Zeppelin recording. If we were to seed it simultaneously on TTD, dime, R-O, eztree, and a dozen other sites, do you honestly believe that a bootlegger wouldn't jump on it, getting his copy directly from a B/T site and press up 10,000 immediately?

The only debate here is: Will the first 10,000 copies be sold before the torrents all end? I'd venture a guess that half will be sold to registered users of R-O with a large quantity going to the same folks who would download a master clone anyway.

As someone on a Rolling Stones bootleg site once typed: "I don't want some CDr burned by some monkey whan I can buy a finished product with classy artwork" - "You know you can't get a better deal than an 'original silver boot' first pressing."

:rolleyes:

Five
2005-08-19, 09:47 PM
you're keen... of course I believe every word of the LA times :lol

but anyways Robert Godwin was beginning to write at length about the end of an era when cdr copying became possible in the 90's. bootleggers are pressing in smaller quantities. Rock Show by Antrabata (l-z) was only 100 and I used to be able to find stuff like that in Toronto. Now I know of one guy who's selling cdr & dvdr stuff and that's it in the city. He's selling mp3-sourced stuff, too. I used to buy bootlegs at many stores before I finally got into trading. Things are not what they used to be.

The reason why I find the numbers believeable is because of (a) the price they get (b) most ppl won't listen to "rare unreleased recordings" they just don't give a fuck... especially if its aud (c) anybody with half a brain realizes that you can copy cds in this day and age and can get more shows than anyone ever thought you could in the old days. Remember, I'm speaking from the perspective of somebody who didn't discover trading for a long time, I just collected bootlegs. I did tape a couple shows, tho.

The record companies are putting out tons of outtakes these days because they saw a market in it... DVD movie releases are full of outtakes now. And a lot of that is because the bootleggers exposed an ignored market. But when it comes to aud tapes or even live stuff in general it will never see mass distribution, the officially-released live stuff is a drop in the bucket to what gets taped and the reason it isn't released is because there is no market in it.

...and just to play devil's advocate with myself one thing I will give those bootleggers credit for is the fact that those silver cds will last something like 100 years, much longer than copies circulating online. Vinyl lasts even longer. So everything that has never been bootlegged will have a difficult time surviving many years into the future fwiw. Digital has to keep moving or it sort of fades away.

freezer
2005-08-19, 10:24 PM
Sorry, I still disagree.

If the bootleggers weren't making money, why would LZ 2/28/75 be on it's 10th different boot release?

I have CDr copies of 4 of these: Louisiana Hayride; Bon Soir, Baton Rouge; LSU Baton Rouge, and In from the Freezer; - all are from the same unverified high gen unverified copy, all sound like they came from pretty worn-out tape copies, not a one is different.

10 different boots all from the same poor source.

Now you're about to get a boot of a torrent of a boot of a boot ad infinitum.

Somebody's making money at $97.00 a pop.

one thing I will give those bootleggers credit for is the fact that those silver cds will last something like 100 years

Well, now, that's something that will cheer up everyone; that a boot of a torrent of a boot of a boot of an infinitely bad copy of a high gen tape will last longer than the master recording. :eek:

Is that an arguement for all tapers to turn over their master tapes to bootleggers immediately? :wtf: :lol :rolleyes: